Dear Paul,
Thank you for the response. As much as we don't agree with the design
rationale, we accept the response from the WG.
We would have liked if PROV-O was more tightly integrated with PROV-DM
and PROV-CONSTRAINTS which both use PROV-N. We understand the
rationale that the WG wants to keep PROV-O tractable and encourages
developers to extend it. However, as pointed out earlier by my
colleague Hector, not having a normative mapping between
PROV-DM/PROV-N and PROV-O makes it really hard for developers like us
to extend PROV-O to encode these inferences and constraints. I'm not
saying this to raise a new issue but to provide feedback for future
PROV development.
Best,
Evren
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> Dear Evren,
>
> Thanks for your response and acknowledgement of our comments. We looked at
> your comment about the justification for why particular inferences are
> included in PROV-O and others are not (see below).
>
> We have prepared a response, which you can find at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-617
>
> We hope this addresses your concern. It would be great if you could
> acknowledge our response indicating whether it does and if not what the
> remaining concern is.
>
> Thanks again for your work and we hope to be able to include Stardog in our
> implementation report!
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > - ISSUE-611 (comments on prov-o)
>>
>> Our comment was not regarding encoding of the constraints in OWL
>> (which is not possible to do completely anyway) but about encoding the
>> inferences in OWL. Right now, it looks like some of the inferences
>> from PROV Constraints document is included in PROV-O. Specifically,
>> Inference 15 (influence-inference) [1] and Inference 20
>> (specialization-alternate-inference) [2] are included in PROV-O as
>> subPropertyOf axioms. But other inferences defined in this document
>> are not included in PROV-O which is a little confusing. For example,
>> Inference 12 (revision-is-alternate-inference) [3] suggests another
>> subPropertyOf relation (wasRevisionOf subPropertyOf alternateOf) but
>> this is not in PROV-O. If the WG chooses to encode some of the
>> inferences in PROV-O but not others, we would like to understand the
>> rationale behind this decision.
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
> Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam